Taking the wider view: Citizens setting priorities for research

In a review of a recent book, Jon Turney, honorary fellow of the Department of Science and Technology at UCL, points to an important gap in current science dialogue. Quoting Sciencewise-ERC, among others, he acknowledges the dialogues taking place in key emerging areas of science such as geoengineering, genetic modification and nanotechnology. However, he argues that there is very little public dialogue that takes a wider view, mapping out all the various areas where scientific research is taking place and asking citizens to deliberate over the trade-offs involved in choosing which areas should be pursued, prioritised and funded. He highlights that the prioritisation of research is highly value-based and is an important topic for citizens to have a say. How should we weigh up scientific curiosity versus human welfare, for example?

Stakeholders, however, are beginning to pay attention to this bigger picture. Turney highlights one recent example, where a group of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) made a wholesale critique of the European Commission’s Research Funding Framework. As well as claiming that the framework should be more focussed on the needs of society, they also demanded that a more participatory and democratic system should be in place for decisions on future funding allocations.

As funding for research continues to tighten over the coming years, the allocation of resources between research areas will become an increasingly controversial issue. It’s important that citizens are engaged in setting the research agenda as well as more targeted deliberations.